Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-12
TIE SUPREME COURT.

A. n. Willie, chief Justice; J, W, Stayton and
r. K, Gaines, associate Justices; G. S. Morse,
clerk; M. ID. Johnson, bailif.
Dan and Mat Lewis vs.. George S.
Johnson, Jr., from Uvalde county; opin-
ion by Stayton, A. j. This action was
brought by appellees to recover an indi-
vidusl haM interest of two sections of
land, which P. T. and NJ. V Adams
owned and located in 1875. March l.,
1876, P. 7. and NJ. V. Adams transferred
the certificates, by proper conveyance to
W. G. Adams, to whom the land was pat
ented in 1880, but the conveyance Of the
certificates was never recorded ex.
cept in the land office. In 1877
appellee's father brought an
action against P. T. Adams and under a
writ of attachment the lend was sold and
! bought in by appellee who, or his father,
knew nothing of the unrecorded convey
ance of the certificates to w. G. Adams.
| The statute says that sn unrecorded con-
veyance shall be void as to all creditors
and subsequent purchasers and the statute
does not make the fling of deed in the
Land Office sufficient The judgment is
affirmed.
M. Koepsel ct al. vs.. John Allen, ct al,
from Guadalupe county; opinion by
Gaines, J. This suit was as to the loca-
| ton of the Moses 4. Baker league, ap-
pellees claiming that its east boundary is
the Guadalupe river, while appellants
claim that it is a certain slough or old
river bed, the land in controversy lying
between the river and slough. The field
notes of the Baker grant call for the river
J but the courses and distance do not cor
respond to the meanders of the stream.
The evidence shows that the calls very
nearly correspond with the conhguratlon
of the slough, and one witness testified
that when the river is high it is hard to
tell the slough from the river. In view OF
these facts the court erred in withdraw
ing from the jury the question whether
the east boundary as originally run eX-
tended to the river or the slough, and for
this the Judgment is reversed and the
cause remanded.
A. L. Newton vs.. W. w. Calhoun and
wife, from Travis county; opinion by
Stsyton, a. J. The question involved in
this case is whether the right of home
stead was lost by appel!ees in property
which they lived in for g long time but
temporarily rented out. The question
was to be decided by the jury whether
eppellees indicated their intention no
more to use the lot for
the purposes of home.
There was not sufficient evidence to show
the homestead right was abandoned, and
the judgment is affirmed.
I'M. SoweIl ct al. VS.. Agnes LockhaTt
Ell al, from Comanche county; opinion
by Willie, c. J. This case arose out of
precisely the same facts as Sowell VS..
Jones, decided q few days ago. The
pleaGings and judgment below were the
same. For the reasons expressed in that
opinion this judgment is reversed and the
cause remended.
KiZzie C. Swenson ct al. VS.. Sun Fire
Office, from Taylor county; opinion by
Willie, CD. Joseph Strickland effected
an insurance upon his dwelling with ap-
pellee, upon the condition that if any
change in the title took place without the
consent of the company, the policy would
be void. Subsequently with the consent
of the company he transferred the policy
to appellants to secure debt, as cOllst-
eral security, which was already Sc
cured by deed of trust. At still later
date he executed g warranty deed to
Elizabeth Strickland, of which the ap-
pelles company had no ,notlce,
until the house was consumed by fire. In
the suit on the policy appellees set up the
defense that the sale violated it, and the
court sustained. 1t is sought by ap-
pellant5 to bring this in line Of
decisions holding the policy as valid, but
most of the authorities cited as support
ing such theory obtain under different
state of facts viz, the transferee of the
policy assumes the payment of all the
assessment made upon thei policy, the
practice being to require those insuring
their property TO give notes for the
premiums due and to become due, and N
the cases referred TO the trsnsferee either
assumes those notes or rendered himself
liable by adding his signature thereto.
In this case such is not the fact, the
company merely agreed to pay the appel
lants, who gave no consideration to it on
their part, provided all the conditions
were complied. The insured mortgagor
continued to pay all the assessments, and
everything remained in statu quo except
the transfer Of the policy. There have
been some decisions supporting the view
of the case relied on by appellants, but
they have been mostly overruled. The
Judgment is affirmed.
Robert Mozart VS.. W. T. Maddox ct al,
from Tarrsnt county; opinion By Gaines,
A. j. This was suit against Maddox, g
sheriff, and the sureties on his bond for
the wrongful seizure of q stock
of goods under writ of attachment.
claimed tie goods by virtue of
an assignment for the benefit of creditors.
Exceptions were sustained to the petition
because 1t showed on its face that it did
not purport to convey all the property of
the assignor. It is sought to bring this
assignment under the strict construction
on them by the statutes of other states,
which make void an assignment that fails
to conform 10 the requirements of the
stStute in certain particulars, but
tue Texas statutes are differ
BBt. There is no express pro-
Vision that failure to comply with its gen.
eral or speciaI requirements shall invali-
date en- assignment, on the contrary it
expressly INSERTS that the failure to file
the i1EsAtory or list shall not avoid the
aEzfzTance. A most liberal construction
has been put upon the statute, the intent
OF which was not to avoid assignments, |
out to bring them as far as practicable |
within it's operation. 1t includes partial !
ss we'll as general assignments. This |
is in accord with both the /
original and amendatory act. The ruling |
was correct to strike ou5 the ale |
CATION as to the number OF creditors who |
assented to the conveyance as it only en-
numbered the record, and it was correct |
10 sustain the exception to so much of /
petition as claimed attorneys fees. The |
OF ''fraud, etc." in the attach
ment is not shown and the allegations do |
not warrant recovery of attorneys fees.
Because of the sustaining the general
demurrer to the petition the judgment is
and the cause remended.
Jane G TorreY ct al VS.. D. A. Martin,